Sherwood Court

Updated 5 January 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 04 October 2017 and was unannounced.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We checked the information we held about this service and the service provider. The service met the regulations we inspected against at the last inspection which took place in May 2015.

During our inspection we spoke with one person who used the service. Most people who used the service were not able to tell us about their experience and so we observed how staff interacted with them to help us understand. We also spoke to a visiting relative of one person living at the service to seek their views about the quality of the service. We also spoke with the registered manager and two support staff. We reviewed three people’s care records, three medicine records, four staff files and records relating to the management of the service, such as quality audits.

Updated 5 January 2018

Sherwood Court is a residential care home for up to eight people with learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum disorders. At the time of our inspection there were eight people using the service.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Due to their complex support needs people were not able to share their views about the support they received from the service. We observed their interactions with staff to help us understand their experience. People using the service appeared to feel safe and were at ease in the company of staff. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and felt confident in how to report concerns.

People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner. Staff knew how to manage risks to promote people’s safety, and balanced these against people’s rights to take risks and remain independent.

There were sufficient staff, with the correct skill mix on duty to support people with their needs. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service. Staff were not offered employment until satisfactory checks had been completed. Staff received an induction process and on-going training. They had attended a variety of training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people. They were supported with regular supervisions and annual appraisals.

Medicines were managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service.

People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were knowledgeable of this guidance and correct processes were in place to protect people. Staff gained consent before supporting people.

People were able to make choices about the food and drinks they had, and staff gave support when required to enable people to access a balanced diet. There was access to drinks and snacks throughout the day.

People were supported to access a variety of health professionals when required, including doctors, psychiatrists, and mental health practitioners to make sure they received continuing healthcare to meet their needs.

Staff provided care and support in an exceptionally caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service very well. People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support.

People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.

People were supported to follow their interests and join in activities.

There was a complaints procedure in place and an easy read version was available to support people to make a complaint should they wish to. There was a system in place to manage complaints although there had not been any in the twelve months before the inspection.

The manager provided strong leadership and was committed to promoting a person centred culture within the service.

Quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.